Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contents
1.
Introduction
Page 3
Page 3
Page 3
2.
English
Modality
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
3.1
Must
(In
regards
to
obligation)
Page 6
Page 7
Page 9
4.
The
importance
of
context,
background
assumptions
and
culture
Page 10
5.
General
problems
with
learning
modality
Page 12
Page 12
6.
Pedagogical
Implications
Page 15
7.
Conclusion
Page 15
Page 17
Page 19
Bibliography
Appendices
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
1.
Introduction
1.1
Choice
of
focus:
Modality
of
obligation
This
essay
will
examine
the
teaching
of
modality
of
obligation
for
Arabic
students
at
an
intermediate
level.
This
section
of
the
essay
will
describe
the
content
of
the
rest
of
the
essay.
The
second
section
of
the
essay
will
justify
the
choice
of
focus.
Section
two
will
attempt
a
description
of
modality
as
it
appears
in
every
language.
Section
three
will
introduce
the
common
words
used
to
express
obligation:
must,
have
to
and
should.
Section
four
will
discuss
the
importance
of
context,
background
assumptions
and
culture
towards
using
modality.
Section
five
will
focus
on
problems
associated
with
learning
modals.
Section
six
will
propose
some
pedagogical
implications
with
reference
to
those
problems
identified
in
section
nine.
Section
seven
will
provide
some
conclusions
that
this
essay
has
arrived
at.
1.2
Justification
for
Choice
of
Focus
Expressing
obligation
is
common
in
communicative
interactions
so
it
is
highly
useful
to
Arabic
students
at
an
intermediate
level
(Saeed,
2009).
It
is
an
area
that
is
easily
skipped
over
by
the
textbooks
currently
used
by
Arabic
learners
of
English.
The
varied
meanings
and
forms
of
the
modal
auxiliaries
present
challenges
for
any
learners
of
English.
These
challenges
are
compounded
for
Arabic
learners,
as
there
is
no
similar
system
of
modal
auxiliaries
in
their
mother
tongue.
2.
English
Modality
2.1
What
is
modality?
Very
broadly,
modality
is
a
function
of
language
that
communicates
statements
about,
or
on
the
basis
of,
situations
which
need
not
be
real
(Portner,
2009).
To
be
more
specific,
modality
is
a
form
of
participation
by
the
speaker
in
the
speech
event.
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
Through
modality,
the
speaker
associates
with
an
utterance
an
indication
of
its
status
and
validity
in
his
own
judgment
(Halliday,
1970).
Modality,
therefore,
performs
the
function
of
expressing
numerous
attitudes
and
opinions
that
the
speaker
has
to
the
literal
meaning
of
their
statements.
These
attitudes
and
opinions
include
permission,
obligation,
ability,
probability,
likelihood,
necessity,
criticism,
advice,
and
commands,
among
many
others
(Thornbury,
1997).
Bahloul
(2008)
agrees
that,
in
any
language,
communication
is
carried
out
for
the
purpose
of
influencing
the
listeners
beliefs,
attitudes,
or
behavior.
Therefore,
the
act
of
creating
an
utterance
is
to
take
a
stand
on
the
content
of
a
thought
as
expressed
to
an
audience.
That
stance
is
actuated
through
the
system
of
modality
(Bahloul,
2008).
Bahloul
describes
every
utterance
as
an
interaction
between
a
lexical
component
and
a
modality
component.
Modality
is,
therefore,
present
throughout
language
as
an
inherent
characteristic
of
every
utterance.
In
English,
modality
is
expressed
in
two
ways:
lexical
modality
and
grammatical
modality.
As
we
can
see
from
Bahlouls
definition,
the
lexis
of
English
will
carry
literal
meaning
concurrently
with
modal
meaning.
Therefore,
an
example
of
lexical
modality
might
be,
I
hope
the
bus
arrives
on
time
where
the
word
hope
also
carries
its
own
lexical
meaning.
Modality
can
also
be
communicated
using
adverbs
and
adjectives,
for
example,
likely
and
probably
(Thornbury,
1997).
A
distinctive
feature
of
English
is
the
second
form
of
modality:
grammatical
modality.
This
form
of
modality
can
be
expressed
through
a
range
of
dedicated
auxiliary
verbs:
must,
may,
might,
can,
could,
will,
would,
shall,
and
should
(Thornbury,
1997).
These
pure
modals
do
not
carry
any
independent
lexical
meaning
they
function
solely
to
convey
grammatical
modality.
Pure
modals
retain
certain
formal
characteristics:
they
are
not
inflected
in
the
third
person,
are
followed
by
the
bare
infinitive,
are
negated
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
by
the
addition
of
nt
or
not,
are
inverted
with
the
subject
to
form
a
question,
and
they
have
no
past
tense
form
(Parrott,
2012).
Others,
like
have
to
are
described
as
semi
modals
because,
although
they
perform
a
similar
function,
they
differ
from
pure
modals
by
being
marked
for
tense
and
number
(have
to,
had
to,
has
to).
2.3
Categories
of
English
modality
For
the
purposes
of
addressing
the
modal
function
of
obligation,
this
essay
will
focus
on
deontic
modality
with
occasional
reference
to
epistemic
modality.
Portner
(2009)
defines
epistemic
modality
as
being
concerned
with
knowledge,
while
deontic
modality
is
concerned
with
right
and
wrong
according
to
some
system
of
rules.
Palmer
(1997)
gives
the
following
examples:
(a) John
must
be
in
his
office.
(Epistemic
modality)
(b) John
must
come
in
now.
(Deontic
modality)
The
function
of
expressing
obligation
is,
therefore,
an
example
of
deontic
modality.
Some
linguists
provide
four
or
more
categories
of
modality
(Bahloul,
2008;
Kratzer,
1977;
Palmer,
1997).
However,
it
is
acknowledged
that
these
categories
are
not
exhaustive
and
often
overlap
(Bahloul,
2008).
By
focusing
this
essay
on
deontic
modality
with
occasional
comparison
to
epistemic
modality
it
is
hoped
that
certain
aspects
of
modal
auxiliary
verbs,
such
as
the
importance
of
context,
will
be
clarified.
Although
most
linguists
use
the
terms
deontic
and
epistemic
modality,
these
terms
can
usefully
be
reframed
as
intrinsic
and
extrinsic
modality.
Extrinsic
modality
focuses
on
evaluations
of
likelihood,
certainty
or
possibility
(Thornbury,
2006).
For
example,
The
bus
will
probably
arrive
on
time.
Thus
extrinsic
modality
provides
a
description
of
the
outside
world.
Intrinsic
modality
focuses
on
notions
of
obligation,
desirability
and
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
necessity,
for
example,
The
bus
driver
ought
to
drive
carefully.
Intrinsic
modality
provides
an
interpersonal
reason
for
acting
(Thornbury,
2006).
The
function
of
obligation
is
an
example
of
intrinsic
(or
deontic)
modality.
The
speaker
is
clearly
providing
an
interpersonal
reason
to
the
addressee
for
acting
(or
not).
3.
What
words
are
used
to
express
modality
of
obligation?
Focusing
on
the
intrinsic
modality
of
obligation,
there
are
three
common
ways
to
express
varying
degrees
of
obligation:
have
(got)
to,
must
and
should.
In
English,
modals
are
often
present
in
weak
form
(Roach,
2010).
There
is
no
weak
form
in
Arabic
(Kenworthy,
1988).
This
can
cause
confusion
for
Arabic
leaners
of
English,
both
for
their
reception
and
production
of
modals.
3.1
Must
(in
regards
to
obligation)
Meaning:
Must
is
a
pure
modal
verb
that
is
used
to
describe
obligation
or
compulsion
imposed
by
the
speaker
(Leech,
2004).
For
example,
You
must
speak
to
him
politely
describes
obligation
that
the
speaker
is
imposing
upon
the
listener.
We
can
use
must
to
give
strong
advice
or
orders
to
ourselves
or
others
(Swan,
2002).
Many
linguists
describe
the
use
of
must
in
terms
of
the
authority
lying
within
the
speaker
(Leech,
2004;
Swan,
2002)
-
contrasting
this
with
the
use
of
have
to
where
the
authority
exists
external
to
the
speaker.
While
acknowledging
this
demarcation
as
a
useful
rule
of
thumb,
Parrot
(2012),
states
that
many
people
dont
make
this
distinction.
He
asserts
that
some
people
rarely
use
must
to
express
any
obligation,
reserving
it
to
express
logical
deduction
or
advice.
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
The
negative
must
not
or
mustnt
communicates
prohibition
(DeCapua,
2008),
for
example,
You
mustnt
speak
to
him
rudely.
Must
expresses
obligation
in
present
and
future.
Form:
Affirmative:
(Subject)
+
must
+
(bare
infinitive)
Negative:
(Subject)
+
must
not/mustnt
+
(bare
infinitive)
Interrogative:
Must
+
(subject)
+
(bare
infinitive)
Must
cannot
be
inflected
for
number
or
time.
There
is
no
past
tense
form
of
must.
(DeCapua,
2008)
It
cannot
be
followed
by
to
+
infinitive
(E.g.
must
to
go)
The
question
form
of
must
uses
inversion
of
subject
and
modal,
for
example,
Must
you?
Yes,
I
must.
Phonology:
In
connected
speech
the
elision
of
the
/t/
sound
from
must
often
occurs
because
it
is
preceeded
by
another
consonant
(Lecumberri,
2000).
3.2
Have
(got)
to
(in
regards
to
obligation)
Meaning:
Have
to
is
modal
in
meaning
but
not
in
form
(Parrott,
2012).
The
meanings
of
have
to
relate
closely
to
those
of
must
(Leech,
2004).
Swan
asserts
that
both
have
to
and
must
can
be
used
in
British
English
to
express
obligation.
He
states
that
have
to
is
the
normal
form
in
American
English.
He
explains
that,
in
British
English,
the
use
of
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
have
to
indicates
the
source
of
authority
as
being
external
to
the
speaker
(Swan,
2002).
Parrots
(2012)
objection
to
this
distinction
(as
outlined
in
3.1)
makes
no
mention
of
the
possibility
of
the
difference
lying
between
British
and
American
English.
DeCapua
(2008)
agrees
with
Parrots
objection
and
prefers
to
demarcate
must
and
have
to
in
terms
of
strength
of
obligation
must
expressing
stronger
obligation
than
have
to.
The
meanings
of
Mustnt
and
dont
have
to
are
completely
different
(Swan,
2002)
You
mustnt
do
something,
means
it
is
necessary
that
you
do
not
do
it
(so
dont
do
it).
You
dont
have
to
do
something,
means
you
dont
need
to
do
it
(but
you
can
if
you
want).
(Murphy,
2000)
You
mustnt
speak
to
him
rudely,
means
the
speaker
is
prohibiting
the
listener
from
speaking
rudely.
You
dont
have
to
speak
to
him
politely,
means
the
speaker
is
leaving
open
the
option
to
speak
politely
or
not.
Form:
Affirmative:
(Subject)
+
have
to/has
to
+
(bare
infinitive)
Negative:
(Subject)
+
do
not/does
not/dont/doesnt
+
have
to
+
(bare
infinitive)
Interrogative:
Do/Does
+
(subject)
+
have
to
+
(bare
infinitive)
Have
to
is
differentiated
from
must
in
that
it
is
a
semi
modal.
The
difference
being
that
it
is
inflected
for
time,
number
and
tense
(Thornbury,
2006).
The
role
of
have
to,
is,
among
other
things,
to
conjugate
into
the
past
tense
because
must
cant
do
that
(Swan,
2002).
Phonology:
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
The
l
in
should
is
not
pronounced
at
all.
When
expressing
the
negative
the
elision
of
d
often
occurs.
For
example,
shouldnt
=
/
nt/.
4.
The
importance
of
context,
culture
and
background
assumptions
Many
linguists
agree
that
often
only
context
makes
modal
meaning
clear
(Parrott,
2012;
Thornbury,
2006).
Portner
(2009)
describes
the
context
of
modal
usage
as
speaker,
addressee,
time
of
utterance,
and
place
of
utterance.
Identical
utterances
made
within
different
contexts
will
have
different
meanings.
Consider
the
following
sentences
(a)
and
(b):
(a)
You
should
try
these
pieces
of
broccoli,
the
sauce
is
great!
as
spoken
by
a
mother
to
her
child.
(b)
You
should
try
these
pieces
of
broccoli,
the
sauce
is
great!
as
spoken
by
the
same
woman
to
a
friend.
Clearly
the
statement
(b)
has
more
of
a
function
of
advice
to
it
and
the
statement
(a)
has
more
of
a
function
of
command.
The
context
of
addressee
has
changed
the
meaning
of
the
modal
should.
Hinkel
(1995)
identifies
a
further
complication
in
understanding
the
meaning
of
modals
by
noting
that
common
cultural
beliefs
and
pragmatic
assumptions
include
views
on
what
is
required,
necessary,
and
appropriate.
Statements
are
fundamentally
informed
by
an
individuals
values
-
values
that
differ
between
cultures
(Hinkel,
1995).
Hinkel
gives
the
following
example,
You
must
always
look
after
your
parents
as
spoken
by
a
Chinese
immigrant
in
a
western
country.
This
statement
could
easily
be
influenced
by
Confucian
and
Taoist
philosophies
that
imply
different
nuances
of
modal
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
10
meaning
than
if
the
same
statement
was
made
by
a
person
of
a
different
culture.
Although
love
for
ones
family
exists
in
all
cultures
in
western
countries,
Hinkel
points
out
that
presuppositions,
which
underlie
our
modal
statements,
are
relative
to
an
assumed
norm
that
is
heavily
influenced
by
cultural
norms.
Kratzer
(1977)
encompasses
such
notions
of
context
and
culture
by
identifying
conversational
background
assumptions
that
establish
which
kind
of
modal
meaning
is
implied
(deontic
or
epistemic,
for
example).
By
examining
the
modal
must
closely,
she
identifies
a
core
modal
meaning
along
the
lines
of
in
view
of
x
where
x
is
a
background
conversational
assumption.
The
background
conversational
assumption
informs
which
particular
meaning
of
must
is
intended.
Kratzer
raises
the
following
examples:
(a)
(b)
The
different
meanings
of
must
used
here
can
be
highlighted
by
what
is
inferred
within
each
sentence:
(a)
In
view
of
what
their
tribal
duties
are,
all
Maori
children
must
learn
the
names
of
their
ancestors.
(b)
In
view
of
what
is
known,
the
ancestors
of
the
Maoris
must
have
arrived
from
Tahiti.
The
conversational
background
that
is
inferred
by
use
of
the
word
must
decides
its
intended
meaning.
The
fact
that
the
speaker
and
listener
could
understand
a
particular
conversational
background
in
a
different
way
shows
how
subjective
the
meaning
of
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
11
12
13
focusing
on
form
at
the
expense
of
more
essential
aspects,
i.e.
use
and
functions,
which
renders
modals
a
real
challenge
even
for
advanced
learners.
An
examination
of
two
textbooks,
one
of
which
is
currently
used
by
more
than
1400
Arabic
students
in
a
popular
high
school
in
the
UAE,
lends
evidence
to
such
a
judgment.
As
seen
in
Appendix
A
(Evans,
2008),
the
brief
exposure
that
modality
is
given
arrives
in
a
totally
de-contextualized
list
of
gap-fill
exercises.
Furthermore,
more
than
one
answer
could
be
used
in
several
of
the
exercises.
The
lack
of
context,
the
focus
on
form
and
the
superficial
approach
to
these
modals
largely
undermines
the
effectiveness
of
this
section
of
the
book.
In
Appendix
B
(Fuchs,
2000),
we
see
an
older
textbook
previously
used
in
UAE
classrooms.
More
context
is
provided
in
this
older
textbook
than
in
the
newer
one.
However,
although
form
and
function
are
included
for
the
students,
there
is
no
direct
relationship
between
the
examples
provided
for
each
modal
and
the
context
in
which
each
modal
appears
in
the
text.
Saeed
is
right
to
point
out
the
issue
of
how
modality
is
presented
to
Arabic
learners.
Textbooks
tend
to
deal
with
modals
superficially,
with
a
focus
on
form
at
the
expense
of
meaning
and
without
the
necessary
degree
of
context
required
to
communicate
the
subtleties
of
the
modal
auxiliaries.
After
a
study
on
verb
acquisition
by
Arabic
learners
of
English,
Saeed
(2011)
advises
that
teachers
should
put
vocabulary
items
in
contextualized
passages,
which
facilitate
Arab
learners
grasping
the
subtle
variations
of
meaning
that
a
lexical
item
possesses.
Such
an
argument
could
be
extended
to
the
acquisition
of
modals.
As
Leech
(2004)
points
out,
modality
is
difficult
to
grasp
for
precisely
the
reasons
Saeed
(2011)
states;
the
shades
of
meaning
conveyed
by
modality
become
remolded
by
social
and
psychological
factors
of
everyday
communication.
These
factors
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
notions
of
impetus,
condescension,
civility,
diplomacy
and
sarcasm.
We
can
infer
from
Saeeds
position
regarding
acquisition
of
vocabulary
items
in
general
that
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
14
Arab
learners
should
be
presented
with
modals
within
contextualized
content.
This
will
guarantee
them
the
best
chance
to
get
a
sense
of
the
subtleties
of
modal
meaning.
6.
Pedagogical
implications
Having
identified
this
area
of
grammatical
confusion,
responsibility
lies
with
teachers
to
focus
on
this
area
rather
than
to
try
to
teach
the
whole
of
grammar
(Ellis,
2006).
Suggestions
for
teaching
the
modality
of
obligation
to
Arabic
learners
include:
1) Using
textbooks
that
focus
on
the
meaning,
form
and
context
of
modal
auxiliaries.
2) Placing
the
modal
auxiliaries
into
context
in
order
to
display
their
meaning
clearly.
3) Raising
students
consciousness
of
modal
auxiliaries;
in
particular,
their
role
in
question
formation
and
negative
statements.
4) Drawing
students
attention
to
the
function
of
each
modal
auxiliary
as
it
appears
in
any
given
context.
7.
Conclusion
Expressing
obligation
is
an
important
part
of
the
communication
needs
of
intermediate
level
Arabic
students.
The
nature
of
the
meaning
and
form
of
the
most
common
words
used
to
describe
obligation,
must,
have
to
and
should,
is
such
that
they
can
easily
be
misconstrued
for
meaning
and
misapplied
for
form.
For
these
reasons,
the
modality
of
obligation
is
a
vital
area
that
must
be
approached
by
teachers
of
intermediate
Arabic
students
with
careful
attention.
Word
count:
3300
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
15
16
Bibliography
Al-Mekhlafi,
M.
(2013).
A
study
of
question
formation
in
the
English
writing
of
Omani
Efl
learners.
Standard
Journal
of
Education
and
Essay,
1(4).
Bahloul,
M.
(2008).
Structure
and
Function
of
the
Arabic
Verb.
New
York:
Routledge.
Charnock,
R.
(2009).
When
may
means
must:
deontic
modality
in
English
statute
construction.
In
E.
C.
Traugott
(Ed.),
Topics
in
English
Linguistics
:
Modality
in
English
:
Theory
and
Description.
Berlin:
Mouton
de
Gruyter.
Danks,
W.
(2011).
The
Arabic
Verb.
Amsterdam:
John
Benjamins
Publishing
Company.
DeCapua,
A.
(2008).
Grammar
for
Teachers.
New
Rochelle:
Springer.
Ellis,
R.
(2006).
Current
Issues
in
the
Teaching
of
Grammar:
An
SLA
Perspective.
TESOL
Quarterly,
40(1).
Evans,
V.
(2008).
Upstream.
Berkshire:
Express
Publishing.
Fuchs,
M.
(2000).
Focus
on
Grammar
-
A
High
Intermediate
Course
for
Reference
and
Practice.
White
Plains:
Pearson
Education.
Halliday,
M.
(1970).
Functional
Diversity
in
Language
as
Seen
from
a
Consideration
of
Modality
and
Mood
in
English.
Foundations
of
English,
6(3).
Hinkel,
E.
(1995).
The
Use
of
Modal
Verbs
as
a
Reflection
of
Cultural
Values.
TESOL
Quarterly,
29(2).
Kenworthy,
J.
(1988).
Teaching
English
Pronunciation.
New
York:
Longman.
Kratzer,
A.
(1977).
What
"must"
and
"can"
must
and
can
mean.
Linguistics
and
Philosophy,
1(1).
Lecumberri,
M.
(2000).
English
Transcription
Course.
London:
Hodder
Arnold.
Leech,
G.
(2004).
Meaning
and
the
English
Verb.
Harlow:
Pearson
Education
Limited.
Murphy,
R.
(2000).
English
Grammar
in
Use.
Cambridge:
CUP.
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
17
18
Appendix A
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
19
Appendix B
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
20
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
21
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
22
Gareth
Williams
Modality:
Arabic
Learners
Expressing
Obligation
at
the
Intermediate
Level
23
24
25